[ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out of
hsantos at santronics.com
Tue Jun 5 12:47:56 PDT 2007
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> NOMAIL is out of scope, wildcards for signature policy are not.
Deja-vu. NOMAIL is not out of scope in SSP and you need to STOP saying
it. The CONFUSING VOTE that was taking - I still don't now show what
it meant but it was not what it would to be removed from SSP!
> There are two deployment stories we need to be able to give,
> one that meets 95% of needs with legacy infrastructure support,
> the second that meets 100% of needs with a minor incremental
> change to the legacy infrastructure.
I don't see how SSP violates this principle.
> The second of these provides a slot ready made
> for NOMAIL, (and for STARTTLE, PGP and SMIME if you like).
Oy vey! So then it is not out of scope as you said.
> I am meeting your set of requirements in full. I am just
> not doing so in such a way that my proposal is out of scope,
> that is all.
Well, I would like to know who proposed this lame rule that it should be
out of scope when it wasn't and was clearly part of all the sepcs - SSP
and DSAP specs.
If people voted under the disquise of a general "NO MAIL" concept across
the board, well, it is clear now this is not what they voted for because
you are making provisions for it.
I don't understand why is so secret. I don't want a NO-MAIL DKIM policy
to be dependent on a KLUDGED MX concept or LMAP support.
Hector Santos, CTO
More information about the ietf-dkim